1. "A person in a third-world country has a choice between A) working in a sweatshop and B) (starving to) death. Therefore that person is being coerced; they are not of sound mind to decide where to work." This person may well be of unsound body and mind, but it's a result of their environment, which force cannot be used to alter without violating the NAP (eg. a law against poverty or unemployment would violate it).
1. "A person in a third-world country has a choice between A) working in a sweatshop and B) (starving to) death. Therefore that person is being coerced; they are not of sound mind to decide where to work."
This person may well be of unsound body and mind, but it's a result of their environment, which force cannot be used to alter without violating the NAP (eg. a law against poverty or unemployment would violate it).
Well this is why I asked you to define "unsound mind". Also, what do you mean by "unsound body"? Why is it that someone faced with the unfortunate choice of working in a sweatshop or starvation is unable to understand the choice that he faces?
2. A person being mugged has a choice between A) giving up his wallet and B) death. The difference is, of course, there is an aggressor in this one (who can be forcibly removed from the equation without violating the NAP), so the transfer of the wallet is understood as coercive.
Again, what does "unsound mind" have to do with this? Why doesn't the victim understand the choice in front of him? Actually, I think it's clear that anyone who does give up his wallet has demonstrated that he does, in fact, have a "sound mind" by virtue of the fact that he chose to live. Of course, it may be the case that someone who chose to die might still have understood his choice. I don't see why it's relevant.
BTW, this is my answer to the metaphysical question, "Are our actions really voluntary, or does our environment force us to do what we do?" I don't know the answer to that in all cases, so I bring up the aforementioned point about aggression and the NAP.
Your environment doesn't make you choose anything. Only actors choose.
QuisCustodiet:This is where the disagreement lies. The purpose of a date-rape drug is to make it so the victim cannot understand what [he or] she is getting into. If Lorraine says the next day she was raped, then that is her argument -- that she could not understand what she was getting into because someone slipped her a date-rape drug. Bill will make the same argument if he tries to sue the doctor. The question is whether a libertarian judge should conclude that George/the doctor or Bill/Lorraine is in the right. In other words, whether the contract should be enforced, whether George had the right to have sex with Lorraine, or if the doctor had the right to take Bill's $500,000. If either contract should be found to be invalid, then for what purpose other than Bill or Lorraine not being of sound body and mind? And if one of the two victims are not of sound body and mind, how isn't the other? Anyway, at least we can see where we disagree (although, please let me know if I'm wrong about that)
The question is whether a libertarian judge should conclude that George/the doctor or Bill/Lorraine is in the right. In other words, whether the contract should be enforced, whether George had the right to have sex with Lorraine, or if the doctor had the right to take Bill's $500,000. If either contract should be found to be invalid, then for what purpose other than Bill or Lorraine not being of sound body and mind? And if one of the two victims are not of sound body and mind, how isn't the other?
Anyway, at least we can see where we disagree (although, please let me know if I'm wrong about that)
I understand what the intended purpose of a date-rape drug is. However, your example made it sound like George explicitly propositioned Lorraine and she explicitly agreed to it. That to me implies that Lorraine knew what she'd be getting into with George in spite of being drugged against her consent. If George simply invited her to spend the night at his place, and he proceeded to have sex with her after she passed out, then that clearly qualifies as rape in my opinion.
You still haven't provided your definition for "of sound body and mind".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
You keep making it about the amount of money the doctor is asking for, but you are not arguing a principal when you do this.
I am arguing the principle. If the doctor interacted with Bill in a way that Bill, after having his ability to think restored, found to be acceptable (i.e. something he would have consented to, just as Lorraine could find the next day that she would have consented to sleeping with George), then whatever the doctor did would have been consentual.
How would you suggest I "argue the principle" for the scenario with Lorraine and George? My argument is identical. It's not that any interaction anyone has with Lorraine is against Lorraine's will, it's that if Lorraine finds out the next day what happened and concludes that, say, George did not have her consent (because he would not have if she was not drugged) for sex, then it was rape. If George only asked Lorraine for half of a PB+J and she gave him half of it while intoxicated, it's not automatically theft. It's theft if she reaches that conclusion once she's sober.
Further, if one argues "George can ask her for half a sandwich but not for sex," then it is they not arguing the principle. I should have added to the original scenario what Lorraine and Bill concluded the next day when the validity of their contracts were being questioned.
I don't find the "norms" thing very convincing. It doesn't seem very libertarian to me. Just because something is a norm doesn't mean you consent to it. What if I think the "norm" is unfair, and would refuse to follow it if I was of sound body and mind? Too bad, I guess.
I don't have one. Ability to understand the consequences of your actions?
However, your example made it sound like George explicitly propositioned Lorraine and she explicitly agreed to it.
Even if she explicitly "agreed" to it, it doesn't matter because she's been roofied!
What if government A force fed the population of Ruritania with mind-altering drugs and glued their eyes open to watch pro-state propoganda, and after government A packed up and moved to an island in the middle of the Pacific, every citizen signed a contract to establish the new government B? Everyone would have "agreed" to this state, and so long as the effects of the drugs from government A stayed in their systems, government B would be a completely voluntary state -- IF Lorraine's explicit "yes" means she wasn't raped.
This is why you need to be really clear about why you think Bill is not of sound mind. When you say to Autolykos that you think it means "the ability to understand the consequences of your actions", this is a huge range, and there is no reason why you can expect anyone else to accept it as a useful legal principle.
The reason I said that you have not been arguing the principle is because you have consistently made the problem about the $500,000 or whatever absurdly high price (in your opinion) the doctor charges Bill for the knee surgery. The principle is about whether the doctor does anything at all. If Bill is unable to legally consent in your opinion, then the doctor cannot make any legal agreements with Bill. You seem to be uncomfortable with this, and rightly so. That's the main problem with what you are arguing. You want to say that Bill cannot legally consent, yet you also want the doctor to perform a surgery with someone who cannot consent. If this were sex, we would call that rape. To put it crudely, you are basically saying it's okay if it's just the tip.
If Lorraine is unable to consent, then she is unable to form any contracts with anyone. She cannot buy anything from the store, she cannot pay for a taxi, she cannot have consensual sex, because, you see, she cannot consent. What you are saying is that she may consent after the fact to anything that has gone on. Basically, if she had a record of all exchanges during her period of intoxication or whatever, the next day she could go around filing suits against the bartender for selling her drinks, the cab driver for driving her home, and for George for having sex with her. You are saying that she may consent the next day. She may forgive all these people for these transactions they made with her.
I can assure you that this is not a principle that would arise in a free market in law. This is not something that both parties to a dispute could ever agree to.
Norms are very libertarian. You don't have to follow norms, but you do that at your own peril. This is true of any system of law. I don't know what you find to be unconvincing about norms. Have you read any of the links that I provided earlier?
What you are saying is that she may consent after the fact to anything that has gone on. Exactly. Actually, I wrote this in the post to which you responded with the concept of "norms." Here's part of it (before the ambulance scenario): But, what if Lorraine and George are actually boyfriend and girlfriend, and when Lorraine becomes sober, she says that the two would have had sex anyway? What if Bill is a billionaire (this was not intentional at all, I promise), and after the bullet has been removed from his kneecap, he says that $500,000 was a fair price for such a procedure? When the doctor and George interact with either of these people at all, they are assuming a certain amount of risk. They can only anticipate however they interact with these people would be consented to if Bill and Lorraine were of sound body and mind. This is a constraint placed upon the doctor and George, and could very well be so constraining that neither the doctor nor George interact with Bill or Lorraine at all. If the doctor miscalculates, and only performs upon Bill because he thinks he can get $500,000 out of Bill later for it, this is a consequence of the risk assumed by the doctor. Bill could even argue that the doctor should not have operated on him at all (because Bill asking him to does not express actual consent, as Bill is not of sound body and mind), and seek restitution from the doctor. The same goes for Lorraine suing George for their interaction. Like Bill, Lorraine can file a complaint, and then an arbitration agency can determine what George owes Lorraine for his actions.
What you are saying is that she may consent after the fact to anything that has gone on.
But, what if Lorraine and George are actually boyfriend and girlfriend, and when Lorraine becomes sober, she says that the two would have had sex anyway?
What if Bill is a billionaire (this was not intentional at all, I promise), and after the bullet has been removed from his kneecap, he says that $500,000 was a fair price for such a procedure?
When the doctor and George interact with either of these people at all, they are assuming a certain amount of risk. They can only anticipate however they interact with these people would be consented to if Bill and Lorraine were of sound body and mind. This is a constraint placed upon the doctor and George, and could very well be so constraining that neither the doctor nor George interact with Bill or Lorraine at all.
If the doctor miscalculates, and only performs upon Bill because he thinks he can get $500,000 out of Bill later for it, this is a consequence of the risk assumed by the doctor. Bill could even argue that the doctor should not have operated on him at all (because Bill asking him to does not express actual consent, as Bill is not of sound body and mind), and seek restitution from the doctor.
The same goes for Lorraine suing George for their interaction. Like Bill, Lorraine can file a complaint, and then an arbitration agency can determine what George owes Lorraine for his actions.
Have you read any of the links that I provided earlier?
Checking over the thread again, I read the "Accomplice" one and the video of Friedman. If you sent another link, I haven't opened it.
I'll repost for you:
What Law Is
A Praxeological Account of Law
Crusoe, Morality, and Axiomatic Libertarianism (this one I didn't post)
QuisCustodiet:I don't have [a definition for "of sound body and mind"]. Ability to understand the consequences of your actions?
If you don't have a definition for it, then that means it's a meaningless phrase to you. So then why are you using it at all?
QuisCustodiet:Even if she explicitly "agreed" to it, it doesn't matter because she's been roofied!
Are you expecting me to agree with that just because you said it? Or what? To me, this is the whole point of contention. I don't see how you've offered any refutation of my position. You've just been dismissing it out of hand.
QuisCustodiet:What if government A force fed the population of Ruritania with mind-altering drugs and glued their eyes open to watch pro-state propoganda, and after government A packed up and moved to an island in the middle of the Pacific, every citizen signed a contract to establish the new government B? Everyone would have "agreed" to this state, and so long as the effects of the drugs from government A stayed in their systems, government B would be a completely voluntary state -- IF Lorraine's explicit "yes" means she wasn't raped.
Why do you see those two scenarios as necessarily equivalent? I think you're deliberately glossing over essential differences. Indeed, I see your entire behavior in this thread (as well as others) as simply attempts to lead people to a predetermined conclusion under the guise of "open-minded investigation".
"I don't have [a definition for "of sound body and mind"]. Ability to understand the consequences of your actions?" If you don't have a definition for it, then that means it's a meaningless phrase to you.
"I don't have [a definition for "of sound body and mind"]. Ability to understand the consequences of your actions?"
If you don't have a definition for it, then that means it's a meaningless phrase to you.
Obviously an exaggeration.
Indeed, I see your entire behavior in this thread (as well as others) as simply attempts to lead people to a predetermined conclusion under the guise of "open-minded investigation".
Wrong. I actually reached a conclusion in the middle of the thread after considering a comment about any interaction with Lorraine.
QuisCustodiet:Obviously an exaggeration.
You don't consider the definition of a word or phrase to be the same as the meaning of a word or phrase?
QuisCustodiet:Wrong. I actually reached a conclusion in the middle of the thread after considering a comment about any interaction with Lorraine.
I don't think so. Your position hasn't changed from the OP.
If my purpose in starting the thread was to convince everybody to accept a conclusion I already had, I wouldn't have stopped debating you and gotlucky when I found a solution to my question.
QuisCustodiet:If my purpose in starting the thread was to convince everybody to accept a conclusion I already had, I wouldn't have stopped debating you and gotlucky when I found a solution to my question.
What are you talking about? You didn't stop.
Like two months ago. I think you're just paranoid.
You're just a troll.
QuisCustodiet:Like two months ago. I think you're just paranoid.
You seemed to be claiming that you stopped well before gotlucky and I stopped posting in this thread. That's just not true.
@gotlucky
Fine.
@Autolykos
Yeah. It kept going for a while to develop/test the answer. My point is it didn't keep going until you agreed.
It's probably implied in the defintion of "contract" that one is under the expecations of the relevant society to be of sound mind.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
QuisCustodiet:Yeah. It kept going for a while to develop/test the answer. My point is it didn't keep going until you agreed.
My point is that you didn't stop posting in the middle of the thread, as was implied by these two statements of yours:
QuisCustodiet:I actually reached a conclusion in the middle of the thread after considering a comment about any interaction with Lorraine.
and
So you claimed that you stopped debating us when you found a solution to your question, but you also claimed to have found that solution in the middle of the thread. That means you effectively claimed that you stopped debating us in the middle of the thread, which is patently false. You seem to be an intelligent person, so I find it very hard to believe that you'd trip yourself up so easily.
Furthermore, I still don't believe that you reached a conclusion in the middle of the thread. As I see it, your (predetermined) conclusion was presented in the OP. As evidence, I present the way in which you worded your concluding questions in the OP, i.e. "Is this not theft?" and "Is this not rape?" Questions of the form "Is this not X?" are typically meant to imply that whatever's being referred to by "this" is indeed X. In other words, I consider your concluding questions in the OP to be decidedly non-neutral in form.
Right. I kept testing my answer vis-a-vis yours. It depends on how you understand "debate". As in, try to convince you I'm right and only that, then no. If as in deliberative discourse, then yes, it kept going.
The other thing I could refer you to is this other post that was set up as a question. I obviously leaned a certain way when posting this. However, in the thread I was pulled away from my position. The only difference is that in the thread we're commenting on now, I ended up going even more in the direction of where I was leaning, and now I've reached a convinction that differs from yours.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/32011.aspx
QuisCustodiet:Right. I kept testing my answer vis-a-vis yours. It depends on how you understand "debate". As in, try to convince you I'm right and only that, then no. If as in deliberative discourse, then yes, it kept going.
Au contraire, you seemed to still be trying to convince me that you're right in your next-to-last post before last week.
QuisCustodiet:The other thing I could refer you to is this other post that was set up as a question. I obviously leaned a certain way when posting this. However, in the thread I was pulled away from my position. The only difference is that in the thread we're commenting on now, I ended up going even more in the direction of where I was leaning, and now I've reached a convinction that differs from yours. http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/32011.aspx
I'm sorry but I'm not going to deterred by any red herring you throw my way. I maintain that the conclusion that you claim to have reached in the middle of this thread was actually one you had reached before you even started this thread.
There are two major beliefs about the role of judges in a libertarian society. One is that judges should play the role of mediator between the parties of a dispute. The other is that the parties of a dispute agree beforehand to abide by the ruling of a judge. There are other views, but these two seem to be the most common among ancaps. I favor the first, but I don't necessarily consider the second to be wrong or without a place in a libertarian society. The main reason I favor the role of mediator is that the judge is meant to help resolve the dispute. It also helps cut down the time it takes to find a "neutral" judge that both parties can agree to. After all, it's easier to shop for a judge when you know he isn't going to rule against you.
There are two major beliefs about the role of judges in a libertarian society. One is that judges should play the role of mediator between the parties of a dispute. The other is that the parties of a dispute agree beforehand to abide by the ruling of a judge. There are other views, but these two seem to be the most common among ancaps.
I favor the first, but I don't necessarily consider the second to be wrong or without a place in a libertarian society. The main reason I favor the role of mediator is that the judge is meant to help resolve the dispute. It also helps cut down the time it takes to find a "neutral" judge that both parties can agree to. After all, it's easier to shop for a judge when you know he isn't going to rule against you.
My view on this is that it would depend on the nature of the dispute. Commercial disputes, neighbourly arguments etc. could be resolved by arbitration. Situations in which you're being accused of murder etc. might require a more adversarial setup and therefore a judge who is willing to favour either one or the other party. Bearing in mind that what judges and the system they are part of do is deliver a stamp, of sorts, that shows that you went through the correct procedures to have your claim examined. So it's a social signalling mechanism, in addition to anything else it is.
I think the topic is interesting. Personally, I would only consider consent not to be present if a) there was mind control, b) lack of consciousness or c) a mind-altering substance that literally made the recipient party unable to comprehend to what exactly they were agreing. Some people might have conditions, such as senility or mental retardation, that make them inherently incapable of such an understanding, so they'd fall under the rubric of c), too. Children may also arguably fall under c) until their brains mature sufficiently.
With Bill, I favour the answer given by Gotlucky. He can dispute the doctor's fee based on what would be "reasonable" to incur in such a situation. On the other hand, I don't think that until Bill has actually haemorrhaged to the point that he is out of his wits is he incapable of granting consent. With Lorraine again it depends on whether she was drugged to that point.
Courts aren't going to reinvent the wheel for every case. They have to work to an evidentiary standard and deal with what they have in front of them. If someone claims the doctor "ripped" him off whilst in a vulnerable state, they're doing so with a particular idea in mind as to what would've been a fair price for the transaction. Also, in the name of efficiency and to more easily deal with routine cases (or elements of them in more complex ones), courts will likely resort to norms. Now, as was said, you don't have to consent to the court's ruling or abide by it but that may have adverse reputational consequences unless you succeed at appealing the decision with another court or otherwise show how the court's conduct was flawed.
Things like norms of appropriation (i.e. what you need to do to appropriate something), abandonment, age of consent etc. are inherently "grey" areas and will require judicial norms to be dealt with fairly and efficiently.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...